The leader of ISIS reported killed. (He wasn't.) Plus: Terror attack in Turkey

I haven't the time to delve into the matter as deeply I should, but there were reports that the Iraqi air force attacked a convoy carrying the head honcho of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Despite early reports which suggested his death, Baghdadi seems to have survived, although we have differing reports as to whether or not he was wounded. Several top ISIS leaders were killed.

Moon of Alabama gives a timeline of events.

Some of you may recall that Baghdadi was reported as killed some months ago. (He got better. )There was also another close shave last November.

Here's the most significant aspect of the recent encounter: U.S. intelligence appears to have played no role in the targeting of that convoy.

In fact, I can find no published evidence that the United States played a role in any of Baghdadi's three "near death experiences."

As Moon of Alabama writes:

Even if this was only a near miss and not a lethal hit on the Caliph himself the operation is a success for the recently revealed intelligence cooperation between Syria, Iraq, Russia, Iran and Hizbullah. That the U.S. was not involved in and not even informed of the operation is a sign of the increasing mistrust the Iraqi government develops against it. Here is the reason:

The believe in Baghdad is that the U.S. does not want to kill off the Islamic State but is silently supporting it. There are some facts, the DIA 2012 analysis and the lack of U.S. airstrikes against IS, that support such thinking.

This Irish newspaper published some very savvy reader comments:

Russia gets involved and suddenly success

Putin making a stand against genocidal terrorists but western media pushing the narrative that Russia only attacks 'moderate' opposition to prop up Assad 'regime'.

Also western media implying that Russian intervention in Syria will make conflict worse and spread the rise of extremism !!!!

Agreed , but the west should carry out regime change in Saudi Arabia , the home of Wahabist ideology and the center of funding for Sunni extremism.

According to Mint Press and other sources, the Iraqis have a "Get Baghdadi" unit named the Falcon Cell, a.k.a. the Falcons.

A new book called The Wikileaks Files (mentioned in an earlier post) offers further insights into the U.S. efforts to create a jihadi army for the purposes of regime change in Syria.

The cables gave the public a recent window into the strategies and motivations of US officials as they expressed them to each other, not as they usually expressed them to the public. In the case of Syria, the cables show that regime change had been a long-standing goal of US policy; that the US promoted sectarianism in support of its regime-change policy, thus helping lay the foundation for the sectarian civil war and massive bloodshed that we see in Syria today; that key components of the Bush administration's regime-change policy remained in place even as the Obama administration moved publicly toward a policy of engagement; and that the US government was much more interested in the Syrian government's foreign policy, particularly its relationship with Iran, than in human rights inside Syria.

By 2014, the sectarian Sunni-Shia character of the civil war in Syria was bemoaned in the United States as an unfortunate development. But in December 2006, the man heading the US embassy in Syria advocated in a cable to the secretary of state and the White House that the US government collaborate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shia as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government.

I am deeply ashamed that a Democratic president continued a disastrous policy initiated by the Bush administration. There are continuing indications that Obama has finally learned the error of his ways. If so, we should be grateful. But even if Obama does reverse his catastrophic policy of regime change in Syria, we must remain vigilant: If a Republican wins in 2016, we can expect a reversal of the reversal.

Terror in Turkey. To be honest, I still have no idea how to interpret the horrific events in Turkey. Suicide bombers killed more than a hundred people attending a pro-Kurd, pro-peace rally.

Protestors are blaming the Erdogan government:

Witnesses and victims’ families, as well as opposition parties, ascribed direct responsibility to the government for allegedly failing to provide any security measures ahead of the peace rally, saying police officers who arrived at the scene after the bombing fired teargas at grieving families who rushed there to inquire about their loved ones.

They also blamed Erdoğan’s government for allegedly sowing chaos ahead of next month’s parliamentary polls, either to delay the elections and retain power for his ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), or to increase his chances of securing a broader majority in the elections to maintain security.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing, and the government has denied any part in it. The prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, cited the political upheaval in both Turkey and Syria and said the attack could have been carried out by Islamic State, Kurdish militants or radical leftist groups.

A short while ago, the BBC reported that the Turkish government believes that the ISIS is responsible.

Some local media have implicated the brother of a man who carried out an IS bombing in the southern border town of Suruc in July, which killed more than 30 people.

However:

The BBC's Mark Lowen in Ankara says that critics of the Turkish government believe it is using IS as a scapegoat - and that murky elements of a so-called "deep state" are to blame for the bombings, aiming to shore up his support ahead of the elections.

The leader of the HDP, Selahattin Demirtas, said the state had attacked the people - and that the people of Turkey should be the recipients of international condolences, not President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.